What if the US invaded Cuba in 1963

[RalofTyr]

During the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I read in a magazine a few years go while one of my friends was visiting her doctors, that Cuba had short ranged nuclear missiles (for use on an invading beach head) and plans to use nuclear torpedoes against American Naval bases.

What would have been American reaction to a Marine Landing Force being "Nuked"?

Would Kennedy show restraint?

Any military plans available today?

How would the invasion pan out?

 

[Agent327]

It seems to me the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted precisely because Kennedy showed restraint, while threatening worse. So there was no need for any invasion after the Bay of Pigs debacle, which in itself may have been an incentive for Cuba to allow nuclear missiles into the country in the first place.

BTW, the Missile Crisis was in 1961, one year after the Bay of Pigs invasion attempt.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

During the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I read in a magazine a few years go while one of my friends was visiting her doctors, that Cuba had short ranged nuclear missiles (for use on an invading beach head) and plans to use nuclear torpedoes against American Naval bases.

What would have been American reaction to a Marine Landing Force being "Nuked"?

Would Kennedy show restraint?

Any military plans available today?

How would the invasion pan out?

It is fortunate that we did not invade, because later anaylsis and Soviet disclosure showed that Soviet commanders in Cuba had authority to use their nuclear weapons in the event of an American invasion or attack. In addition, several units of medium bombers (Il-28 Beagles) and 60,000 Soviet troops were in Cuba by fall 1962. Even the short range missiles could reach as far as New Orleans, so, assuming the Soviet commanders were trigger-happy, you would probably have seen a city or two evaporate, and World War III would ensue. This is why people say that Kennedy and Khrushchev averted World War in The Crisis, because we nearly found ourselves there; invasion of Cuba was one of the plans on the table.

It seems to me the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted precisely because Kennedy showed restraint, while threatening worse. So there was no need for any invasion after the Bay of Pigs debacle, which in itself may have been an incentive for Cuba to allow nuclear missiles into the country in the first place.

What is certain is that it was only after the Bay of Pigs invasion that Castro fully committed himself and his country to Soviet-style Socialism, and appealed to the USSR for alliance and aid.

BTW, the Missile Crisis was in 1961, one year after the Bay of Pigs invasion attempt.

No, the Crisis was in September-October 1962.

 

[frekk]

What is certain is that it was only after the Bay of Pigs invasion that Castro fully committed himself and his country to Soviet-style Socialism, and appealed to the USSR for alliance and aid.

Yes, a classic Homer Simpson moment for the foreign policy wizards.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Then care to explain why he came to the US for aid first, if he was so previously committed to being a reincarnation of Stalin from the get go?

 

[frekk]

Then care to explain why he came to the US for aid first, if he was so previously committed to being a reincarnation of Stalin from the get go?

I'm not clear on where you got the idea I was disputing his distance from the USSR prior to the Bay of Pigs. I was agreeing that the Bay of Pigs was a blunder in more ways than one.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ah, I thought you were comparing my comment to something Homer Simpson would say.

 

[bob bobato]

What if the US invaded Cuba in 1963

There would have been World War III, a massive power shift, and people in 2008 would have thought that war between the USSR and the US had been inevitable.

 

[Sharwood]

During the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I read in a magazine a few years go while one of my friends was visiting her doctors, that Cuba had short ranged nuclear missiles (for use on an invading beach head) and plans to use nuclear torpedoes against American Naval bases.

What would have been American reaction to a Marine Landing Force being "Nuked"?

Would Kennedy show restraint?

Any military plans available today?

How would the invasion pan out?

Read Resurrection Day by Brendan DuBois.

Resurgent British Empire y'all!

 

[alcal]

There would have been World War III, a massive power shift, and people in 2008 would have thought that war between the USSR and the US had been inevitable.

You got it all.

 

[luiz]

Then care to explain why he came to the US for aid first, if he was so previously committed to being a reincarnation of Stalin from the get go?

It is entirely clear that US actions helped to push Cuba into the Soviet's arms. It is far less clear what the outcome would be had the US shown a less combative approach.

For starters, Fidel's brother Raúl was already a die-hard communist, as was Guevara. Before Cuba's problems with the US, Huber Matos (a cuban revolutionary who fought alongside Castro but was later arrested for criticising the regime) was already denouncing the fact that marxist elements lead precisely by Raúl Castro and Guevara were seizing control of the entire governmeny apparatus. It is hardly surprising that when Matos was arrested for crime of speech, Guevara was a vocal proponent of having him executed.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It is entirely clear that US actions helped to push Cuba into the Soviet's arms. It is far less clear what the outcome would be had the US shown a less combative approach.

I sometimes wonder about this. I imagine it to shape up like a sort of Scandanavian welfare state, but poorer, of course. Sugar was what made Cuba go 'round, and I doubt you'd have the same kind of money in Cuban sugar after the revolution, even if the US sided with Castro, simply because it was the sugar industry (something like 80% of the Cuban economy in 1960) that was the source of ills for the revolution in the first place.

For starters, Fidel's brother Raúl was already a die-hard communist, as was Guevara.

Well Fidel was arguably as well, but seeing as he did appeal to Ike for aid, I imagine he was more willing to compromise on that issue before his hand was played for him.

Before Cuba's problems with the US, Huber Matos (a cuban revolutionary who fought alongside Castro but was later arrested for criticising the regime) was already denouncing the fact that marxist elements lead precisely by Raúl Castro and Guevara were seizing control of the entire governmeny apparatus. It is hardly surprising that when Matos was arrested for crime of speech, Guevara was a vocal proponent of having him executed.

Indeed, Cuba fell quickly to dictatorship. I don't know the timeline of the events you describe precisely, but I imagine if it happened after Soviet patronage began, that you could lay part of the blame for such actions being okay on that. This is where I wonder again what Cuba would have become had Ike not chosen to give Castro the cold shoulder. Though it's arguably understandable why he would do so, us having gone through the trouble of putting our pet Batista in power only a few years earlier, but I sometimes wonder why the United States, once the vocal sponsor and friend of revolutions and self-determination everywhere, has stepped away from that position. Not that the Cuban Revolution was the first instance of this, indeed, one could go back as early as Vietnam in 1918, but it is another nail in the coffin, and the pain of whose actions we are still feeling today.

 

[luiz]

I sometimes wonder about this. I imagine it to shape up like a sort of Scandanavian welfare state, but poorer, of course. Sugar was what made Cuba go 'round, and I doubt you'd have the same kind of money in Cuban sugar after the revolution, even if the US sided with Castro, simply because it was the sugar industry (something like 80% of the Cuban economy in 1960) that was the source of ills for the revolution in the first place.

Many people who took part in the Cuban Revolution wanted something like a social democracy. But not the leaders. There is a chance (which I find very small) that it may not have become communist, but if you look at the profile of the people in charge - Fidel, Raúl, Guevara and even Cienfuegos - you see that there was no realistic chance it would be a democracy after the Revolution.

Well Fidel was arguably as well, but seeing as he did appeal to Ike for aid, I imagine he was more willing to compromise on that issue before his hand was played for him.

It is unclear whether Fidel was a communist or not. Orginally he said he wasn't, he went as far as to assure many people both in Cuba and outside that he wasn't. Nowadays he of course claims to have been a communist since childhood, but that's not necessarily true. He was a charismatic nationalist leader, probably had sympathies for communism but may well have been willing to approach things differently.

As for him requesting help from the US, I don't read much into it. Guevara, who was certainly a communist since day 01, also tried to keep friendly dialogue with the americans, at least until he managed to get soviet assurances. It was simply a matter of politics, as they could not antagonize too much a so close and so strong neighbour right from the begining.

Indeed, Cuba fell quickly to dictatorship. I don't know the timeline of the events you describe precisely, but I imagine if it happened after Soviet patronage began, that you could lay part of the blame for such actions being okay on that.

No, Matos denounced communist infiltration prior to open soviet patronage. At first Castro tried to assure him that he was wrong, that it was not a communist revolution. Not much later he arrested him.

That's why I think it would have gone commie anyway. Raúl and Guevara were too strong within the Movement, and Fidel since the begining listened to them more then anyone else.

This is where I wonder again what Cuba would have become had Ike not chosen to give Castro the cold shoulder. Though it's arguably understandable why he would do so, us having gone through the trouble of putting our pet Batista in power only a few years earlier, but I sometimes wonder why the United States, once the vocal sponsor and friend of revolutions and self-determination everywhere, has stepped away from that position. Not that the Cuban Revolution was the first instance of this, indeed, one could go back as early as Vietnam in 1918, but it is another nail in the coffin, and the pain of whose actions we are still feeling today.

Well it was a revolution very against american interests. It's no wonder you opposed it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Many people who took part in the Cuban Revolution wanted something like a social democracy. But not the leaders. There is a chance (which I find very small) that it may not have become communist, but if you look at the profile of the people in charge - Fidel, Raúl, Guevara and even Cienfuegos - you see that there was no realistic chance it would be a democracy after the Revolution.


It is unclear whether Fidel was a communist or not. Orginally he said he wasn't, he went as far as to assure many people both in Cuba and outside that he wasn't. Nowadays he of course claims to have been a communist since childhood, but that's not necessarily true. He was a charismatic nationalist leader, probably had sympathies for communism but may well have been willing to approach things differently.

As for him requesting help from the US, I don't read much into it. Guevara, who was certainly a communist since day 01, also tried to keep friendly dialogue with the americans, at least until he managed to get soviet assurances. It was simply a matter of politics, as they could not antagonize too much a so close and so strong neighbour right from the begining.


No, Matos denounced communist infiltration prior to open soviet patronage. At first Castro tried to assure him that he was wrong, that it was not a communist revolution. Not much later he arrested him.

That's why I think it would have gone commie anyway. Raúl and Guevara were too strong within the Movement, and Fidel since the begining listened to them more then anyone else.

You appear very well-read about this subject. Is there a book you'd recommend?

Well it was a revolution very against american interests. It's no wonder you opposed it.

We should have just made Cuba a US Territory in 1898 instead of trying to be sly with the Teller Amendment. You know, call a spade a spade.

 

[JohnRM]

It seems to me the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted precisely because Kennedy showed restraint, while threatening worse. So there was no need for any invasion after the Bay of Pigs debacle, which in itself may have been an incentive for Cuba to allow nuclear missiles into the country in the first place.

BTW, the Missile Crisis was in 1961, one year after the Bay of Pigs invasion attempt.

The Cuban Missile Crisis took place in 1962.

 

[luiz]

You appear very well-read about this subject. Is there a book you'd recommend?

There's a book called "Fidel Castro: Uma Biografia Consentida" (A Consented Biography). It was written in portuguese by a brazilian, but I know it is also avaiable in Spanish and probably in English.

The writer was the first person to have access to the historical files of the cuban government. One must keep in mind that this is a consented biography, written by someone with strong sympathies for the cuban regime, so many grains of salt are necessary. But the historical value of the book is undeniable.

 

[RalofTyr]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081023/wl_time/willtheusbuyintocubasoilfind

May happen soon.

Cuba has oil.

 

[Sharwood]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081023/wl_time/willtheusbuyintocubasoilfind

May happen soon.

Cuba has oil.

There was a thread on that in Off Topic that was actually named something along the lines of: "Cuba guarantees it will be invaded by US." RedRalphWiggum made it, so I'm sure he remembers better than I do.

 

[Traitorfish]

Many people who took part in the Cuban Revolution wanted something like a social democracy. But not the leaders. There is a chance (which I find very small) that it may not have become communist, but if you look at the profile of the people in charge - Fidel, Raúl, Guevara and even Cienfuegos - you see that there was no realistic chance it would be a democracy after the Revolution.

That assumes that Soviet-allied socialism is inherently totalitarian, an assertion neatly disproved by Nicaragua, in which the revolutionaries established a democratic regime which promptly removed them from power. True, Castro and Pals had more dictatorial leaning, but the US justified these to the Cuban people by presenting itself as a giant scape-goat for the regime's failings, freeing Castro from the necessity of compromise. If the US had been friendly, Castro would, most likely, have been forced to grudgingly introduce democracy of some form or another.

 

[plarq]

That assumes that Soviet-allied socialism is inherently totalitarian, an assertion neatly disproved by Nicaragua, in which the revolutionaries established a democratic regime which promptly removed them from power. True, Castro and Pals had more dictatorial leaning, but the US justified these to the Cuban people by presenting itself as a giant scape-goat for the regime's failings, freeing Castro from the necessity of compromise. If the US had been friendly, Castro would, most likely, have been forced to grudgingly introduce democracy of some form or another.

Castro was more competitive than those anti-US social-democrat pro-Soviets--if you want to do "socialism", do it completely and purge those anti-government people.

That's why Cuba stands and Nicaragua falls. So is Guatemala. What about Chavez?